Biblical Inerrancy

By Stephen L. Andrew

Stephen L. Andrew (M.A. George Washington University; M.A. Claremont Graduate University) is pursuing an M.A. in Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, where he concentrates on Biblical Studies and Theology. He can be reached at steve_andrew@cp.fuller.edu.

Introduction

This article first examines the history of the debate over biblical inerrancy within modern evangelicalism. Second, it examines traditional arguments both for and against inerrancy. We will demonstrate that inerrancy is an important doctrine to promote and defend, but caution is urged in choosing arguments to support it. Not all arguments for inerrancy are valid.

At the outset it seems appropriate to consider definitions that have been offered for the doctrine of inerrancy. Paul D. Feinberg presents an excellent definition from the perspective of an advocate:

Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences. [1]

Article XII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy offers a similar affirmation in support of the doctrine:

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. 

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood. [2]

For the purposes of this article, we shall understand “inerrancy” in light of both of the above definitions.

Alternative understandings of inerrancy have been proposed. Millard Erickson has identified at least three theories. The first is “absolute inerrancy,” which is represented by the preceding definitions. The second is “full inerrancy,” represented by Roger Nicole and arguing that historical and scientific matters are “correct” but “not necessarily exact,” because they are only “popular descriptions.” Finally, there is “source inerrancy,” represented by Edward J. Carnell and Everett F. Harrison; they argue that inerrancy guarantees “only an accurate reproducing of the sources which the Scripture writer employed, but not a correcting of them.” [3]

This article considers arguments against inerrancy only from the point of view of Protestant evangelicalism, which applies an essentially grammatical-historical hermeneutic to Scripture and confesses Scriptural authority. Critics of inerrancy who come from this perspective often identify themselves as “limited inerrantists” (following B. B. Warfield’s original designation [4]) or as advocates of “biblical infallibility.” To limit confusion, I shall refer to this position as “limited inerrancy.” A good definition of this approach follows:

The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice. In these senses, I personally hold that the Bible is infallible but not inerrant. [5]

A Brief History of the Inerrancy Debate

It is necessary to provide a preliminary introduction to the history of the modern debate over inerrancy to contextualize the arguments offered on either side. Most historians agree that the opening shots in the debate among evangelicals were fired in the late 19th century. B. B. Warfield, probably the foremost American conservative theologian of his time, argued extensively for biblical inerrancy. James Orr, who insisted on limited inerrancy, opposed Warfield. [6] Later, in the 20th century, G. C. Berkouwer took up Orr’s standard and, arguing primarily against Warfield’s view, delivered what remain perhaps the strongest arguments yet for limited inerrancy. [7]

The debate began to heat up in the 1960s, when Dewey M. Beegle published a scathing attack on inerrancy. [8] But it was in 1976, with the publication of Harold Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible, [9] that all figurative hell broke loose. In this book Lindsell documented the increasing movement toward limited inerrancy in evangelical circles, including various seminaries, [10] denominations, and parachurch groups. He named offenders’ names and mounted a vigorous (if not entirely scholarly) defense of inerrancy as a cardinal doctrine of orthodoxy.

The reactions on both sides were extraordinary. Fuller Theological Seminary printed a defense of its position in a special issue of its in-house alumni newsletter, following up with a symposium of essays defending limited inerrancy, edited by Fuller professor Jack Rogers. [11] In the meantime the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (I.C.B.I.) arose to defend inerrancy and released its Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in 1978. The following year Lindsell released his sequel, The Bible in the Balance, [12] which responded to the criticism generated from the previous volume and traced the progression of limited inerrancy during the intervening three years. That same year, Jack Rogers and Donald McKim published The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach, [13] which argued that the contemporary notion of inerrancy was novel in the history of the Christian church. This of course provoked a firestorm from the inerrantists and further stoked the fires of debate.

The debate has died down somewhat since the 1980s, but the issues (and the wounds) still linger. The eminent evangelicals who joined the battle over the years for inerrancy include: Lindsell, Earl D. Radmacher, Carl F. H. Henry, James I. Packer, John D. Woodbridge, John Warwick Montgomery, James Montgomery Boice, Francis Schaeffer, E. J. Young, R. C. Sproul, Norman L. Geisler, John H. Gerstner, Gleason L. Archer, and the very early Clark H. Pinnock.

The eminent evangelicals who joined the battle over the years on the side of limited inerrancy include: Beegle, Jewett, Davis, Rogers, McKim, Daniel P. Fuller, George E. Ladd, William S. LaSor, Charles Kraft, Robert Mounce, and F. F. Bruce. [14]

Arguments for Inerrancy

I should acknowledge at the outset of this section that I am personally sympathetic to inerrancy. This is why I shall first discuss the methodological ground rules for the evaluation of the arguments presented. Next, I shall consider the slippery-slope argument. Third, I will evaluate the epistemological argument, followed by the historical argument. Finally, I will examine the biblical argument for inerrancy.

Preliminary Considerations

Before we examine the arguments themselves, it is necessary to clarify some preliminary points. The hinge on which the debate swings is hermeneutical. There are very few inerrantists who argue for an objective inerrancy, in which statements in Scripture ought to be interpreted apart from their grammatical and historical contexts. For example, an objective inerrantist would argue that when Christ said that the mustard seed “is the smallest of all the seeds” (Matthew 13:31–32),15 He meant the mustard seed is indeed the smallest seed in all the world. Subjective inerrancy, on the other hand, emphasizes the need to understand the text from the author’s point of view. Accordingly, a subjective inerrantist might argue that both Matthew and Jesus intended the statement to be understood from the perspective of ancient Palestinian farmers, for whom the mustard seed is in fact the smallest seed.16

Clark Pinnock has commented on the importance of authorial intent for a proper understanding of inerrancy:

The infallibility [17] of Scripture is not, in one sense, absolute. Its field is restricted to the intended assertions of Scripture understood by an ordinary grammatical-historical exegesis of the text. Scripture operates under a normal correspondence idea of truth…. The intentionality of Scripture is identical with its plain and literal sense and is not superimposed arbitrarily upon the text. [18]

And furthermore:

Inerrancy … is relative to the intentionality of Scripture and an artificial standard must not be imposed. The degree of precision is determined by the cultural milieu. [19]

Article XIII of the Chicago Statement elaborates on this point:

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations. [20]

This “subjective inerrancy” [21] is the hermeneutical standard we shall apply in our evaluation of the evidence.

Davis, among others, has argued that this qualification of the doctrine of inerrancy approaches unfalsifiability. [22] It presents “the defender of inerrancy with a perennially open door of escape.” [23] This is not true; to disprove it I will illustrate the wedge that can be driven between the two sides on this question. Consider Luke 2:2, which clearly states that the census “was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.” The author (presumably Luke) is clearly intending to state that Quirinius was indeed governor at the time these events transpired, an assertion that has been questioned and denied by many historians. Without attempting to offer an extended apologetic on the passage, let me point out that an inerrantist will insist that, when all the evidence is in, the statement will be proved correct; a limited inerrantist is likely to brush this off as an “insignificant historical error.” The point stands: the qualification of “authorial intent” is a legitimate one. [24]

The Slippery-Slope Argument

Some inerrantists, most notably Lindsell, have argued that surrendering inerrancy undermines the foundation of orthodoxy, leading to the eventual surrender of all orthodox doctrine. Without the linchpin of inerrancy, argues Lindsell, orthodox evangelicalism is a house of cards. Here is Lindsell on “How Infection Spreads”:

History affords us notable examples of institutions and denominations that have gone astray. At times it is not easy to perceive how this happened. The trend away from orthodoxy may be slow in movement, gradual in its scope, and almost invisible to the naked eye. When people awaken to what has happened, it is too late…. Theological aberration, like cancer, begins as a small and seemingly insignificant blemish, but when it is left to itself it grows and spreads. [25]

The early Pinnock likewise held to a form of the slippery slope:

“Inerrancy is … urgent for Protestants because the sola scriptura principle cannot be maintained without it. An erring authority cannot serve as the only source and judge of Christian theology.” [26]

As mentioned earlier, we hold strenuously to biblical inerrancy. But not all arguments for inerrancy are valid. The slippery-slope argument is invalid for two reasons. First, it is not self-evidently true that once an orthodox individual or institution denies inerrancy he or it is ultimately bound to abandon orthodoxy. Consider Fuller Theological Seminary, which was Lindsell’s primary target. More than a quarter of a century has passed since The Battle for the Bible was published, and Fuller Seminary is still firmly committed to such orthodox doctrines as the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, Substitutionary Atonement, Christ’s bodily resurrection on the third day, justification “by faith alone through the merit of Christ our Savior [which grants] the free gift of eternal life,” and the literal return of Christ to earth. [27]

There is currently no agitation nor any inclination at all to change Fuller’s statement of faith. True, there is no doctrine restraining them from a slippery slope away from orthodoxy into liberalism, but there is no necessary guarantee that this will happen. This leads to the second logical objection to the slippery-slope argument: it is a prediction, and as such it is no better than the fallacy known as the “argument from silence.” Furthermore, Lindsell never specified how long it would take for an institution to make the complete transition into liberalism. This means that his prediction is unfalsifiable, and thus it is not a valid argument.

The Epistemological Argument

The epistemological argument is logically sounder than the slippery-slope argument. This argument holds that, once inerrancy is surrendered, all of Scripture becomes suspect in regards to trustworthiness. Ironically, Dan Fuller (presumably in an unguarded moment) provided ammunition for Lindsell’s recitation of the epistemological argument, and Lindsell quotes him approvingly: “If even one of its (i.e., the Bible’s) statements could be in error, the truth of any of its statements becomes questionable.” [28]

In his earlier incarnation as a strong inerrantist, Clark Pinnock wrote the following:

The result of denying inerrancy, as skeptics well know, is the loss of a trustworthy Bible. Limited inerrancy is a slope, not a platform. Although we are repeatedly assured that minor errors in unimportant matters would not greatly affect the substance of the Christian faith nor the authority of Scripture, this admission has the effect of leaving us with a Bible which is a compound of truth and error, with no one to tell us which is which. [29]

I agree with this logic. That is, the presence of one error in Scripture would not necessarily mean that there are others. What it would mean is that we could not be sure, in any given passage, whether the information is true or not. The introduction of uncertainty does undermine the plenary trustworthiness of the Word of God.

The Historical Argument

Until Rogers and McKim wrote The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, it was conventional wisdom that most, if not all, of the Church Fathers and the Reformers accepted a form of biblical inerrancy, even if they did not so call it. Rogers and McKim challenged this opinion. I will deal with their arguments (and John Woodbridge’s rejoinder to them) in more detail in the next section. For now I will simply cite a few representative quotations [30] and go on record as agreeing that the historical record overwhelmingly supports the conventional wisdom that essential inerrancy has always been the normative view of orthodox Christianity. On the other hand, this fact alone does not prove anything. After all, many Church Fathers held to baptismal regeneration, and we think that is hardly correct. Ultimately, the historical argument becomes a fallacious appeal to authority.

Nonetheless, it is reassuring to know that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy was not just invented in the 19th century. Augustine, in his Epistle 82, wrote: “Only to those books which are called canonical have I learned to give honor so that I believe most firmly that no author in these books made any error in writing.” [31] Luther stated simply: “Scripture cannot err,” and “The Scriptures have never erred.” [32] Calvin referred to Scripture as “the inerring standard,” “the infallible rule of His Holy Truth,” “free from every stain or defect,” “the inerring certainty,” “the certain and unerring rule,” the “unerring light,” the “infallible Word of God,” “inviolable,” “infallible oracles,” and he even (perhaps in a fit of great enthusiasm) stated that the Bible “has nothing belonging to man mixed with it.” [33] Finally, as a representative of the Princetonian school (whose members undergo historical revisionism at the hands of Rogers and McKim), Charles Hodge declares: “The whole Bible was written under such an influence as preserved its human authors from all error, and makes it for the Church the infallible rule of faith and practice.” [34]

The Biblical Argument

All arguments for inerrancy of which I am aware admit that Scripture does not explicitly claim inerrancy for itself. Nevertheless, arguments have been put forward for its implicit claims. Space limitations preclude an adequate exegesis of all the passages adduced in support of inerrancy, but I will cite and briefly comment on them.

Perhaps the most common passage used to support inerrancy is 2 Timothy 3:16, which teaches that all Scripture is inspired by God. 2 Peter 1:20–21 teaches that Scripture originates not with human will, but with God’s will. When we combine these two passages with Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 6:18 (these latter four passages all teach that God does not lie), we can legitimately deduce that there are no errors in Scripture. [35] It is no wonder that Pinnock writes: “Inerrancy is to be regarded as an essential concomitant of the doctrine of inspiration, a necessary inference drawn from the fact that Scripture is God’s Word.” [36]
 And furthermore: “If one believes the Scripture to be God’s Word, he cannot fail to believe it inerrant. Inerrancy has been the constant teaching of the Fathers, Protestant and Catholic theologians, and recent popes, because it is a necessary conclusion from the fact of divine authorship.” [37] Likewise, Wayne A. Grudem states:

For it to be eternally useful for edification, God’s word must be an abiding testimony to the veracity of God’s speech: Untruthful statements would be unprofitable and bring dishonor to God by portraying Him as one who at times speaks untruthfully, and they would serve as an encouragement to people to imitate God and sometimes speak untruthfully as well. [38]

In Matthew 5:18, Jesus states that not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. In John 10:35, Jesus bases his argument from Psalm 82:6 on the fact that the scripture cannot be annulled. Both of these passages teach that Scripture (in these cases, the Old Testament) is authoritative—even its jots, tittles, and the least of [the] commandments (Matthew 5:19).

Finally, arguments in the New Testament often appeal to the Old Testament on the basis of verb tenses (Matthew 22:32), singular versus plural nouns (Galatians 3:16), and the existence of individual words (indeed, even individual letters and parts of letters, if we take Matthew 5:18 literally) in the text (John 10:34–36). All this is evidence for plenary, verbal inspiration and, by extension, inerrancy.

Arguments against Inerrancy

As in the previous section, I will first discuss some preliminary considerations for the evaluation of evidence. Next, I will address the arguments put forward by limited inerrantists against those discussed in the preceding section.

Preliminary Considerations

It is usually easier to argue against a point than it is to argue for it. This is because the negative side is not compelled to go on the defensive; they only have to knock down the affirmative view.

For this reason, and because of limited space, I will not be presenting the evidence for limited inerrancy; instead, I will be presenting the evidence of limited inerrantists against inerrancy.

The Slippery-Slope Argument

Let us reiterate that inerrancy is a crucial doctrine to uphold and defend. But not all of the arguments for inerrancy are logically tenable. The slippery-slope argument is certainly the weakest argument for inerrancy. In his rebuttal of it, Davis makes several strong points. [39] First, he points out that it is purely illogical to argue that if an individual abandons inerrancy, he will inevitably reject all orthodox doctrine, or even any [other] orthodox doctrine.

Second, he points out that there are several notable orthodox theologians who have never held to inerrancy. If inerrancy is the indispensable foundation for all orthodox doctrine, how can these individuals hold to orthodox doctrines without it? Furthermore, inerrancy does not even guarantee orthodoxy for its adherents: Jehovah’s Witnesses, hardly an orthodox group, hold strenuously to biblical inerrancy.

Then there is the empirical evidence. Granted, Lindsell has documented individuals and institutions who have strayed from inerrancy and subsequently orthodoxy, but he has not established either correlation or causation. But probably the strongest argument against the slippery-slope approach is nicely summed up by Davis: “The real question to ask is whether or not a doctrine is true, not what the pragmatic effects of believing or not believing it will be.” [40]

The Epistemological Argument

Once again Davis, being a professional philosopher by trade, feels compelled to draw attention to the logical flaws in the philosophical arguments put forth by inerrantists. What his rebuttal comes down to is a rejection of deductive reason as the basis for a legitimate epistemological inerrancy and an insistence on inductive, concrete proof of inerrancy. This, he insists, we do not have. [41] However, we shall discover that Davis’s arguments against the epistemological argument are not as strong as his arguments against the slippery slope.

According to Davis, inerrantists argue that if Scripture is inspired (i.e., originated and superintended) by God, and if God does not tell falsehoods, then it follows deductively that Scripture contains no falsehoods. Davis points out that this is circular reasoning; the basis for the assertion that Scripture is inspired is Scripture’s own statement about itself. The only sure-fire way to be sure the Bible is inerrant is to examine each of its truth claims individually:

The only way we can know that [the Bible] will never mislead us is if we know that it is inerrant, which in my opinion no one knows. I do not believe we have any “sure guarantee” that any Christian doctrine is true—at least not a Cartesian sort of “sure guarantee.” We do have evidence, and I am a Christian because I believe that the available evidence, both subjective and objective, supports Christian beliefs. But more than this we do not have. [42]

The Clark Pinnock who repudiated his earlier inerrantist views makes a similar argument:

In the last analysis, the inerrancy theory is a logical deduction not well supported exegetically…. The deductive tendency that would see inerrancy as a necessary corollary of inspiration works against honestly facing up to the data, both in the case of the claims themselves and in respect of many of the phenomena of the text. [43]

In response to these plausible attacks on the epistemological argument, we acknowledge that they are valid but unsound. That is, if inerrantists argue deductively as is represented by Davis and Pinnock (and, unfortunately, many have), then the argument is indeed circular and fallacious.

What follows is a tricky and involved philosophical discussion, but we will try to be concise. We believe the philosophical problem can ultimately be solved on the basis of primary inductive historical investigation and subsequent deductive argumentation. That is to say, we first determine the likelihood that the historical Jesus of Nazareth made such statements as are recorded in Matthew 5:18 and John 10:35. This is a fundamentally inductive exercise.

The next step is to prove (once again, inductively, on the basis of historical investigation) the likelihood that Jesus of Nazareth both predicted His own death and resurrection, and that He then in fact died and rose from the dead. On this inductively derived basis it is logical to conclude that He is who He claimed to be. For our purposes in this article, it is enough that He claimed to be authoritative in His teaching, and His teaching included the idea that the Hebrew Scriptures are inerrant and that the future ministry of the Holy Spirit would include the authoritative teaching of “all things” to Christ’s hand-picked apostles, who in turn wrote the New Testament. [44] Once these facts are established inductively, one can move to deductive arguments and ultimately prove that all of Scripture is inerrant. [45]

But there is a more fundamental problem with arguments such as Davis makes. He himself states, “… I believe that the only epistemological credentials a doctrine must have in order to be accepted by evangelicals is that it seem true on the available evidence…. I believe B, C, and D because I believe they are taught in the Bible and because I know of no argument or evidence that refutes them.” [46] Unfortunately, this undermines the strength of his previous argument. Why should an inerrantist’s epistemology be faulted if he believes that inspiration (with its deductive implications) is taught in Scripture and knows of no argument against it? Davis is hoist on his own petard! Davis is ultimately forced to conclude: “It is true that no Christian who believes that the Bible errs can hold that the Bible alone is his authority for faith and practice. He must hold to some other authority or criterion as well. That authority, I am not embarrassed to say, is his own mind, his own ability to reason.” [47] Lest anyone miss the point, he reiterates his view: “I believe that the Bible is or ought to be authoritative for every Christian in all that it says on any subject unless and until he encounters a passage which after careful study and for good reasons he cannot accept.” For Davis, “Paul’s apparent sexism” is such a subject. [48]

The Historical Argument

Rogers and McKim have made the most prominent attempt to argue that the Church Fathers, the Reformers and Westminster Divines, and even the Princetonians of the 19th century did not believe in what we now call inerrancy. [49] In my view, Woodbridge has decisively exposed their work as intellectually tendentious, selective, and ignorant of the mass amount of data supporting inerrancy as an ancient doctrine. [50]

Since whole books have been written on this subject, we cannot do justice to the debate in this brief article. We are convinced that Woodbridge has by far the better evidence and argument, but we acknowledge the debate and encourage the reader to examine the evidence on his own.

The Biblical Argument

Limited inerrantists have traditionally argued five basic points against the inerrantist’s argument from the biblical evidence. [51] First, it is pointed out that Scripture never explicitly claims inerrancy for itself. [52] As I pointed out earlier, however, this is irrelevant if, in fact, Scripture implicitly claims inerrancy for itself, as I have tried to argue that it does.

Second, because inerrantists argue that Scripture will be found errorless when all the data is in, opponents have charged them with making an unfalsifiable claim. This is a false charge of fallacy, however. Inerrantists do not claim that inerrancy is unfalsifiable in principle—only that certain facts are missing in particular cases. In such cases, to argue (as some limited inerrantists do) that inerrancy has been proved false is an argument from silence.

Third, opponents have claimed that inerrantists do not do justice to the human element of Scripture. Humans make mistakes, and since Scripture is co-authored by God and man, should we not expect minor human errors? To the contrary: a product of God ipso facto cannot contain error. Furthermore, one cannot say that a product of humanity must contain error ipso facto. Applying the principle of Ockham’s Razor, [53] we can safely conclude that inerrancy is the doctrine that does not violate either the divine or human elements of biblical authorship.

Fourth, a common argument is that one cannot simultaneously affirm inerrancy without denying it, since by definition inerrancy only applies to the original autographs, and we possess none of them. [54] This is a variant on the “unfalsifiability” charge. However, it is, practically speaking, a “red herring.” Even Davis admits that “this argument is in fact seldom used by sophisticated defenders of inerrancy,” because “[t]he science of textual criticism has advanced to the point where we know very well what the autographs said in the case of the vast majority of Biblical texts.” [55] This qualification is only posited in recognition of the fact that there are competing textual traditions. If inerrantists had failed to take note of this, they would have been accused of scholarly naiveté. It was a “Catch-22” of sorts. But, as Davis points out, the unfalsifiable ploy is rarely used, and then only when there are legitimate textual problems. That is what makes this argument against inerrancy a red herring.

Finally, there are passages that are often used as examples of errors in fact. [56] Each of these passages has been answered in responsible ways by scholarly-minded inerrantists. There are no examples of clear-cut errors in Scripture that only a “fundamentalist zealot” could defend as true. Having said this, one must admit that not all inerrantists have been consistently responsible in dealing with alleged biblical discrepancies. [57]

Conclusion

First we defined “inerrancy” and “limited inerrancy” and presented a brief history of the modern debate beginning with Warfield and Orr and continuing up until the present day. Then we clarified some hermeneutical presuppositions and considered arguments that have been presented in favor of inerrancy: the slippery-slope argument, the epistemological argument, the historical argument, and the biblical argument. Next we examined some of the arguments against these evidences for inerrancy and evaluated them.

In closing, I found that the slippery-slope argument is logically indefensible and empirically questionable. Furthermore, it is utterly irrelevant to the real issue at stake: is the Bible in fact inerrant? On the other hand, the epistemological argument is highly persuasive, provided one begins with inductive reasoning and only then proceeds to deductive argumentation. The historical argument clearly favors inerrancy, but by itself it proves nothing and is thus invalid for the normative claims of inerrancy. Finally, the biblical argument seems to stand unrefuted by its critics. In sum, the epistemological and biblical arguments carry the day for inerrancy. Ultimately, I judge inerrancy to have borne its burden of proof.

Bibliography

Inerrantists

• Carson, D. A., and John D. Woodbridge, eds. Scripture and Truth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.
• Geisler, Norman L., ed. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980.
• Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. ed. Chicago: Moody, 1986.
• Lindsell, Harold. The Battle for the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
• ________. The Bible in the Balance. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.
• Packer, J. I. Beyond the Battle for the Bible. Westchester, IL: Cornerstone, 1980.
• ________. ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God: Some Evangelical Principles. London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1958.
• Pinnock, Clark H. Biblical Revelation—The Foundation of Christian Theology. Chicago: Moody, 1971.
• Radmacher, Earl D., and Robert D. Preus, eds. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Academie, 1984.
• Rice, John R. Our God-Breathed Book—The Bible. Murfreesboro, TN: Sword of the Lord, 1969.
• Woodbridge, John D. Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.
• Youngblood, Ronald, ed. Evangelicals and Inerrancy. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984.

Non-Inerrantists

• Barr, James. Fundamentalism. London: SCM Press, 1977.
• Beegle, Dewey M. The Inspiration of Scripture. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963.
• Davis, Stephen T. The Debate about the Bible: Inerrancy versus Infallibility. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977.
• Pinnock, Clark H. The Scripture Principle. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984.
• Rogers, Jack, ed. Biblical Authority. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1977.
• Rogers, Jack B., and Donald K. McKim. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979.

—End—

Notes

1. Paul D. Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 294.
2. “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” appendix to Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 496.
3. James Leo Garrett, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 166. That Harrison held to this view is supported by Clark H. Pinnock, Biblical Revelation—The Foundation of Christian Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1971), 77.
4. Warfield himself disagreed with limited inerrancy, as will be later demonstrated.
5. Stephen T. Davis, The Debate about the Bible: Inerrancy versus Infallibility (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 23. Throughout this article, all italics within quotations are in the original. In J. I. Packer, Beyond the Battle for the Bible (Westchester, Ill.: Cornerstone Books, 1980), 51, Packer opposes the distinction between infallibility and inerrancy: “Attempts such as that of Stephen Davis to affirm biblical infallibility while denying biblical inerrancy are the expedients of individuals with two convictional horses to ride—religious certainty about the Bible’s power, and intellectual uncertainty about its full truth.”
6. Garrett, 162; Pinnock, 77.
7. See Henry Krabbendam, “B. B. Warfield Versus G. C. Berkouwer on Scripture,” in Geisler, 413–46; Packer, 53–56.
8. Dewey M. Beegle, The Inspiration of Scripture (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963).
9. Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976).
10. Lindsell, a founding professor of Fuller Seminary, hit that institution especially hard. The seminary was particularly vulnerable, insofar as it had always tried to combine conservative, evangelical fervor with responsible critical scholarship. Matters were not helped by the publication of Professor Paul K. Jewett’s Man As Male and Female, in which he argued that “the apostle Paul erred on the matter of the subordination of a wife to her husband, which is taught in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians” (Lindsell, 118). The seminary faculty formally disavowed Jewett’s conclusions, but took no further disciplinary action against him.
11. Jack Rogers, ed., Biblical Authority (Waco, TX.: Word, 1977).
12. Harold Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979).
13. Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979).
14. Both sides have claimed Bernard L. Ramm and the later Clark Pinnock as their own. Both of these scholars have highly nuanced views on the issue. If I were forced to pigeonhole them in one of the two camps, I suppose I would list them both as limited inerrantists.
15. All Scripture quotations are from the NRSV.
16. For exegetical options from a syntactical perspective, see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 301.
17. Here Pinnock uses “infallibility” interchangeably with “inerrancy.”
18. Pinnock, 71.
19. Ibid., 75.
20. “Chicago Statement,” 496.
21. As far as I know, this term originates with me, as does “objective inerrancy.”
22. Davis claims the doctrine of inerrancy is unfalsifiable not only because its proponents can always attribute an obvious error to a corruption of the original autographs, but also because they can always argue that the biblical author did not intend to be scientifically or historically precise in a given passage.
23. See discussion in Davis, 25–27.
24. For exegetical options from a syntactical perspective, see Wallace, 304–5.
25. Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible, 185.
26. Pinnock, 74.
27. Fuller Theological Seminary Catalog 2000–2002, 6–7.
28. Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance, 220.
29. Pinnock, 80.
30. Admittedly, I cannot provide the full context for the quotations, nor does this short article afford the opportunity for a lengthy discussion. But I can hardly omit a few of what I consider to be telling quotations from our spiritual forefathers on the subject of biblical authority.
31. Garrett, 159.
32. Ibid.
33. John H. Gerstner, “The View of the Bible Held by the Church: Calvin and the Westminster Divines,” in Geisler, 391.
34. John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 130.
35. I have made use here of the excellent summary of the biblical argument in Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984), 142–43.
36. Pinnock, 73.
37. Ibid., 74.
38. Wayne A. Grudem, “Scripture’s Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture,” in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 44.
39. See Davis’s discussion, 83–93.
40. Davis, 90.
41. What follows is a summary of Davis’s rebuttal to the epistemological argument, 66–82.
42. Davis, 70.
43. Clark H. Pinnock, The Scripture Principle (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 58–59.
44. Cf. John 14:26.
45. Further details involved in this proof constitute the subject for another paper (or book).
46. Davis, 71.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid., 116.
49. See footnote 13.
50. See footnote 34.
51. In what follows I have made use of the summary of objections to the biblical argument in Elwell, 144–45.
52. See, for example, Pinnock, The Scripture Principle, 58.
53. “Ockham’s Razor” is the philosophical law of parsimony, which states that entities must not be multiplied beyond what is necessary. In other words, it is the preference for the simplest theory from among all the theories that fit the facts we know.
54. This is Colin Brown’s argument from a class lecture of 7/6/01 in Systematic Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. See also Davis, 25.
55. Davis, 25.
56. For that matter, Paul Jewett and Steve Davis have cited passages they take as examples of errors in moral judgment and doctrine (!).
57. For example, see Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible, 174–76. Here he “harmonizes” the accounts of Peter’s denials by concluding that Peter in fact denied Christ six times instead of three! There have been better treatments of this problem by committed inerrantists.